LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) BILL

5.29 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Chapter 248 of the Revised Edition)."

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

The Prime Minister: Now, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

The Prime Minister: I lay upon the Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order, and hon. Members have received copies of the Bill. Is there any hon. Member who wishes to have an extra copy? If not, I call upon the Prime Minister to move the Second Reading.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members will have noticed from the motion moved by my colleague, the Minister for National Development, it is the intention of the Government to seek the consent of the House to acquire the fire site and to acquire it under conditions which will not give a windfall to the landowners.

Sir, under the present law, if we acquire that land today, we will have to pay the market value of the land as at the date of publication of the Gazette Notification, which means the land which is vacant, without tenants and squatters. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an unfortunate fact that land with squatters and tenants on it is worth considerably less than land without tenants and squatters. I have been advised by the Government Valuer that in areas such as this, encumbered land with tenants and squatters is worth approximately one-third the value of land without tenants and squatters. I think Members will agree that it is heinous in the extreme to allow any profit to be made out of this fire. In fact, if any profit is allowed to be made, then it will only be an inducement, a temptation to arson by those who possess land with squatters on it. Most of the land to be acquired, or nearly all of the land to be acquired, belongs to private owners - 53 owners in all; a few large ones going up to 12 acres per single owner; but mostly small ones varying between half an acre and two acres. Fortunately for us, there is clear evidence that this particular site was encumbered by squatters and tenants. In fact, in 1954 both the City Valuer and the Government Valuer had made a survey and valuation of the land. The City Assessor had put it at 43 cents per square foot with the tenants and squatters then present; and the Government Valuer had put it at 41 cents per square foot. I am further advised by the valuers that the price of land between 1954 and now has not varied to any extent, but that it is most likely that the number of squatters and tenants has increased. If there is any tendency on the valuers' part to alter this valuation, it would be towards diminishing it in view of the larger number of tenants and squatters who would have been present on the night of the fire.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the officers responsible, both in the State Advocate-General's Chambers and in the Land Office, for putting up this Bill at short notice. I would hesitate to say that if they were given more time, they could not find more rough edges to polish. But, nevertheless, it is a workmanlike piece of draftmanship in the circumstances. I can assure the House that the expectation is that this will be the only instance we anticipate using this proviso. The reason is that a completely new Land Acquisition Bill will be introduced in the next Session, in which a provision similar to this, but with such other refinements as this operation would indicate necessary, would be put in.

Can I briefly then explain the way in which this clause is to work? Under section 26 there are five factors which determine the value of compensation to he awarded. For the convenience of Members, I have appended a copy of section 26. Factor (a) is the market value of the land at the time of acquisition; and factor (e), the fifth factor, is that of expenses incurred by having to change residence or place of business. Sir, the fire has already taken place; residence has already been changed; the squatters and tenants have already been removed; and it falls upon the Government and the public at large to expend a considerable amount of money and effort to rehouse and rehabilitate the fire victims. I think the least this House can expect of landowners is that they should not benefit from this fire. We are not asking them to incur a loss. We are not expropriating the land. But we say quite clearly that it would be unconscionable to allow any private landowner to benefit as a result of this fire. Therefore, the clause in this Bill to be moved will remove the necessity to consider factors (a) and (e). Instead of factor (a), the market value will not be the market value at the date of acquisition where there are no tenants and squatters, but at the date just before the devastation, that means, with the tenants and squatters. That was the real value if the Government had acquired it and had to pay compensation to every single squatter and every tenant who moved out of the land. Factor (e), as I have said, does not apply, because in any case the squatters and tenants have been moved out.

But I must admit to one difficulty to which the land officers, particularly the Collector of Land Revenue, will face. Everybody knows roughly how many squatters there were. In fact, on registration with the Social Welfare Department of the Ministry of Labour and Law, we know that they are somewhere in the region of 3,000 families. The difficulty will be between the claims of competing owners. We know that with 3,000 families on that plot of land, it can be proved by expert evidence that the value of the land will be one-third its unencumbered land. But it will be difficult for us to prove or disprove that a particular squatter was on a red acre or a blue acre, because the house is already burned, the receipts have gone, the tenants and squatters have moved out, and probably cannot again be found to go back and give evidence. I am not saying that any landowner will do it, but I think it might well be possible for a landowner, who is enterprising enough to make sure that he expresses further sympathy with the fire victim, to ask him to disappear forever so that he will never give evidence to say that he was a squatter there. It is quite possible that the owner of a red acre can say, "I never had squatters on my land. All the squatters were on my neighbour's land - a blue acre." And so interminable arguments can go on. We are not saying that there are, in fact, no plots of land without squatters. There may well be, but we are putting the onus upon the owner. The burden of proof is on the owner. If he proves that, in fact, his plot was an oil mill and there were no squatters and no tenants, that he was the only chap there, he owns the land and he can give vacant possession if he wanted to sell the land, then the Minister has the power when he has satisfied himself and the Collector of Land Revenue has satisfied himself, to up the one-third limit. The one-third limit is the overall value of the land with that number of squatters on it. If any owner of any piece of land can prove - not we prove that he had the squatters but he proves that he did not have the squatters - to the satisfaction of the Collector of Land Revenue and his investigators, then we are quite prepared to exceed and remove the limitations of one-third.

Sir, finally I would like to say that the other three factors, (b), (c) and (d) which the Court has to take into consideration in making an award will remain - injurious affection of land by separation; increase in value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put; and damage sustained by the person at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land by reason of acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, whether movable or immovable. These are the factors that will still, apply, but the two factors that do not apply are (a) and (e). And for the reasons that I have stated, I hope the House will give this Bill swift passage.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question proposed.

5.44 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Prime Minister has made my task very much easier than I thought it would be, because he said that this amendment is only of a temporary nature and intended only to affect the present ad hoc situation, and that the Government has in mind a complete overhaul of the Land Acquisition Bill, in which, of course, this amendment will come into play. Therefore, when I do suggest to the Prime Minister that the terms of the Bill have exceeded the avowed purpose of the Bill set out in the Explanatory Statement, perhaps these are matters which the Prime Minister will consider when the whole of this Ordinance is reconsidered.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first point I wish to make on a matter of principle is this. The impetus for the amendment is not to allow the landlord to benefit from the fortuitous dispersal of his tenants and squatters by an Act of God, with which, of course, we completely agree; more so when such land is subject to the control of the Rent Ordinance. But where I find the Bill has gone beyond affecting landlords who have benefited by the fire, so to speak, is this clause, Mr Speaker, which says - if I may read that clause (clause 2):

"Provided that in the case of an acquisition for a public purpose of any land devastated or affected directly or indirectly by fire, explosion, thunderbolt, earthquake, storm, tempest, flood or any Act of God,".'

Up till now it is perfectly all right, Mr Speaker, Sir. This, I think, is the objectionable portion of the Bill:

` "., or of any land immediately adjoining such devastated or affected land as shall be required for such public purpose,".'

Now, as I understand the Bill, an area has been devastated. This particular area is subject to rent control. As a result of the devastation, the landlord is put in a better position. Therefore, it is only right and proper that he should not benefit by this devastation. Therefore, the restraining proviso of this amendment is completely in accord with the Government's intention, and we support it. But what I do not understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. There is a piece of land adjoining this which is a vacant piece of land not affected by squatters; but because the Government feels that it will be better and more economic from the town planning point of view to develop the whole area rather these two acres of devastated land, why must the landlord of the other six acres, shall I say, be put in the same position as the landlord whose sites have been devastated by fire? I find that completely inequitable. But I appreciate and understand the equity and the justness of the first case. But I certainly do not appreciate the justness of bringing in adjoining landowners who are free of squatters. You are putting them in the same category and only allowing them one-third of the land value.

The second point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. The last proviso to the Bill reads:

`And provided further that the market value of such land shall not exceed one third of the value of such land had it been vacant land not subject to any such encumbrances, tenancies or occupation by squatters unless the Minister shall in his discretion by notification in the Gazette specify otherwise.'

I would have felt much happier if the Bill had confined itself to saying:

`that he shall be paid the market value of such land on the encumbered site.'

So that it would not be an arbitrary way of fixing the value. The Hon. the Prime Minister has said that, by an arithmetical process arrived at between him and the Commissioner of Lands, he has come to the conclusion that that is one-third. Perhaps that is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir. But that is based on the fact that the valuation of the Commissioner of Lands is accepted as the gospel truth. There are many people in Singapore who are not willing to accept the valuation of the Commissioner of Lands as the gospel truth on such matters. That is the second point. They would have felt happier if that matter had been left to the Court, if the landlord were so desirous of going to Court.

Now the other matter which I am going to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister is this. This Bill has been given life by this national calamity which has occurred at this site. Thousands of families have been deprived of housing. But the Bill as set out here, Mr Speaker, Sir:

`Provided that in the case of an acquisition for a public purpose of any land devastated..'.

"any land devastated" might be just half an acre. Now the public conscience is so stirred on this occasion that this Bill becomes necessary. But there are several fires in Singapore which go unnoticed, to which the attention of the Assembly is not brought to bear, and no special sittings are called simply because they are not of a national character. They just become particular local calamities and not national calamities. The scope of this Bill takes the acquisitive powers of the Government beyond the national calamity into a situation which is merely a private calamity. So that the Government can enter into this acquisition business on a private calamity and apply the provisions. I am not saying they are going to do it, Mr Speaker, Sir. But the provisions of the Bill are such that they could do it if they want to do it. I do not think the Government want to do it, and I hope they will also look into this matter when the whole of the Ordinance is reconsidered.

5.50 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I too am glad that the Prime Minister is going to introduce another Bill because, in my case, I feel that this Bill, since it applies only to land already devastated by fire, etc., means that those people who stay in densely-packed attap-house areas which are continually subject to grave fire risks will not be able to benefit by any protection the Government can give today. It means that over their heads will always hang the sword of Damocles, that at any time they too will be subjected to this sort of a calamity. They will lose their homes, their property, and some of them will lose their lives. I would suggest, Sir, that the Government take steps so that these people may be prevented from undergoing such a calamity, because the public are anxious that annually-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know how those remarks are relevant to the Bill. We are now dealing with an amendment to the Land Acquisition Ordinance which provides for acquisition with a special method of compensation. I do not know how methods of preventing calamities have anything to do with this Bill.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is relevant in the sense that if the Prime Minister wants to amend clause 2, Sir, it can be done. It is left to the Government side. If the Government side does not want to amend it here, I suggest these provisions be included in a future Bill. If it is so amended that it applies not only to land devastated at this time, but also to land likely to be devastated, then that can be provided for in an amending clause 2. [Pause.]

Mr Speaker: Will the Member please continue until I rule him out of order?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: So long as I have made the point, Sir, I leave it to the Prime Minister to consider that for his next Bill.

The Prime Minister: Made what point?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has not understood, Sir, I repeat. The point is this. The public are asking, "Must people wait for another fire before the Government takes just remedial action? That is-

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to ask the Member for Tanglin whether that has anything to do with land acquisition. We are dealing with the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill. Has that anything to do with land acquisition?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very sorry if I have not made it clear enough. But the danger of another fire can be prevented if Government has further powers to acquire areas where these attap houses are built together in such close proximity that if any spark catches one roof it means the beginning of another conflagration. That is for the Government to decide.

The next point, Sir, is this. I have been charged with suggesting that I am recommending the resettling of attap-house area people affected by fire and so on, on to houses with higher rents. We all can see that if the Government is going to pay one-third of, we might say, the regular value of land, then it is in a position to subsidise people who are staying in such houses, and therefore the rents must be lower than usual. That is the purpose of acquiring the land at a lower rate than the market value. I made no such suggestion, and I take this opportunity to explain that I never made the suggestion that there should be higher rents for these fire victims. Instead I suggested that they should be given lower rents.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister, in reply?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I must be forgiven for not being able to follow the Member for Tanglin the first time. But when he was speaking the second time, it dawned upon me that perhaps what the Member meant was, let us change the Bill in such a way that if any fire takes place, we expropriate the whole land. So all landlords will be so worried about it that they will install fire-fighting apparatus in every squatter's hut in case he loses his land by fire. Perhaps I will ask my officers to give consideration to that point.

An hon. Member: Before the fire.

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: May I dispose of the points made by the Member for Farrer Park? First, the question of the adjoining land. That is absolutely important, both for the reasons the Member has stated. For a comprehensive scheme you will have to include little bits of land either with buildings or without buildings which may adjoin a fire site. Also because we want to avoid any difficulty which would arise if any tenant or any landlord disputes whether or not his house or his site is involved in the fire site. But the case has already arisen in the Bukit Ho Swee fire. A block of shophouses was burnt. All the tenants fled for safety on the advice of the police and the Fire Brigade. The fire was checked right up to the end house. The end house was only partially burnt, or perhaps a spark just burned a speck on the window. Does this clause come into operation? Was this house devastated either directly or indirectly by a fire, an explosion, a thunderbolt, or an earthquake? Is it suggested that we acquire nine houses under this and the tenth one is left out because it is arguable whether it was, in fact, devastated by the fire or whether it was partially burnt out and so on? Therefore, the clause is not only necessary from the Town Planner's point of view, but it is also necessary from the point of view of the land acquisition officer. He has to have power which cannot be challenged. When he exercises his power clearly on the facts and says, "This is part of the fire site, or adjoining it", then it is up to the Court to decide whether or not the land which was not directly affected by the fire is immediately so adjoining as to be indirectly affected. Therefore, it makes the question of interpretation and quibbling less likely to arise.

As to the other question of the market value of the land being fixed at one-third, I think I had in my opening explained the reasons for this exercise. Everybody knows - not just the Land Office Valuer or the City Assessor - you can bring any number of auctioneers and licensed valuers to give evidence to show that if you want to get rid of squatters, or if you sell land which has squatters and tenants on it, it is worth about one-third the market value. But the difficulty will arise when, after the fire has taken place, you are to apportion between the competing interests. Were all seven tenants on Lot A and there were no tenants on Lot B? Or were there three tenants on Lot A and four tenants on Lot B? We could spend years of litigation on this. Everybody knows that there were 3,000 families living there. Therefore, from the point of view of expeditious land acquiring in a fair manner, we have adopted this omnibus clause of putting the limit at one-third.

As I have stated, I have given an understanding on my moving the Second Reading just now that if a man can prove to the Collector of Land Revenue that, in fact, he had no tenants and no squatters, that he was in actual physical possession himself, that he ran a little factory, then the Land Collector will obviously advise the Minister that his is an appropriate case in which action could be taken under the last proviso where the Minister can, in his discretion, by notification in the Gazette, specify otherwise. It is as simple as that. In other words, what it means is this. If any client turns up to see any lawyer, the lawyer will tell him, "Look, it is not worth your while buying off your squatters and telling them to disappear, because the onus is on you to prove it." But he can prove and convince his lawyer. He says, "Obviously I was in occupation there with all members of my family. I was running a bicycle shop there or a sauce factory. I own a piece of land, and if I had wanted to sell it, I would have moved out." Obviously, the lawyer would advise him that it is worth while paying a modest fee to seek the clemency of the Collector of Land Revenue in order to get the Minister to gazette. But, as I have said, this is a matter of practical tactics. Do we involve ourselves in endless inquiries as to which squatter was on which land? Or do we try to spread equitably the load over everyone? Which, in fact, is probably the real and true position, that there was no plot of land there which was not encumbered by tenants or squatters, and leave it to the odd individual who happened to be in actual physical possession of his own land to seek discretion under the proviso?

As to the other remarks on the comprehensiveness of the provision, when the final Bill is drafted, I think we will have the experience of the workings of this particular proviso. Perhaps on that occasion, we can speak with more expert knowledge of what landowners do, and what squatters do after a fire, and what evidence is left. But I think one definite effect this Bill will have is that it will give no inducement whatsoever to any landlord to attempt arson. It is not worth the candle. As I have said, I will take the advice of the Member for Tanglin and ask my officers to consider whether or not we should go one step further and just say, in view of the general necessity to prevent fires and so on, we will acquire the land for nothing, so that every landlord will install a spirit-pump, foam and all the fire-fighting apparatus right there on the spot to see that his squatters are safe and sound from fire.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[The Prime Minister].

Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

The business having concluded, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes past six o'clock p.m.